Iranian regime has to go

June 29, 2018

Robert Torricelli, Democratic member of the United States Senate from 1997 to 2003; and member of house of representative for 14 years in the United States, addressing a panel on "politics on Iran" in Paris, June 29, 2018.

Transcript of Mr. Robert Torricelli remarks :

Before I get to Iran, I have to deal with a very important
subject, and that is Italy. I am
heartened to know that you think that the new government is going to lead to
good American-Italian cooperation, because obviously there's very much a fear
of the opposite, and we're all very concerned about it. Italy, obviously, does need new leadership,
new policies. It obviously has some
fundamental problems for all of its strength, and we all wish it well. I just hope that is done in a cooperative
spirit with the United States and I was heartened by your remarks.

Having now said positive things, let me run the risk of
uniting everyone in the room who's not an American against me. But by being as frank as I can. I am an unlikely proponent of Trump policy is
having been in the Democratic leadership in the Congress for many years, but it
appears to me that by and large, the Trump policy on Iran, what we are doing is
what everybody else in a quiet moment is thinking. No one can genuinely believe that there is a
long-term future the family of nations, if our goal is international
reconciliation, the spreading of markets and prosperity, the strengthening of
international institutions with the Iranian regime at the table. There could not be more evidence that that
simply is not possible. And we all
recognize that getting from here to there, changing the regime is dangerous,
messy, a lot of people and a lot of interests will get hurts, but no one can
genuinely believe at this point after Syria, after what's happened in Iraq,
after the use of...these horrendous weapons that there's really an alternative.

So we can all differ on Donald Trump. We can all have our views about him and his
unusual personality and some of his policies, but has he not just done with
Iran what we all really hate to admit really has to happen? We have a brief and probably fleeting moment
in history where the democratic nations are in strong economic position, have
the prevailing political philosophy of our time, control most major international
organizations, and are as close to military hegemony as they will ever
get. That may not last.

There are many new players rising on the horizon that are
not necessarily democratic, who'll have military and economic strengths of
their own, different ideas that may not include democratic ideal. If we're going to deal with the mullahs and outlaw regimes like it,
it's only now. Now critics can
say that the United States with its (shrill points) and Secretary Pompeo has
set a not high, but an impossible bar to meet, therefore the goal really isn't
reconciliation. Exactly right. I think that's true. And there's no reason why we should be
compromising on those standards.

An Iran that wants to join the family of nations shouldn't
be given a separate deal. Here's the
deal-how you have to behave and act like every other leading nation. This is not the most disparaging term in
American diplomacy, some banana republic.
This is a nation of 80 million people that if it were functioning
properly with a normal economy, normal government, normal trade, normal
leadership would be a great regional, if not international economic power. There should be no separate deal. How it governs itself, how it treats its
people, how it behaves in the family of nations, how it arms itself, how it
conducts itself with its neighbors should be to the highest standards. That's what Pompeo's 12 Points are about-no
separate deal. Does that mean that we'll
never really reconcile with the mullahs?
To be fair, to be honest, yes, it does.
It means that we
are in a state, even if unacknowledged, of attempting regime change.

I am heartened, although, (to be) fair, I don't think other
nations in the Western alliance are being honest about the future as we are publicly. The cooperation that appears to be coming
from Europe on the economic side with the new American standards against Iran
are at least begrudgingly cooperative.
They can all lead to the same place.

The
regime has to go. And there's
only two ways to get there. We do this
through economic pressure, which leads to internal political change or it
happens militarily. No one should want
it to happen militarily. And those who
are against a military answer with the regime...well, you can't also be against
the economic. Or how do you intend to
get there, unless you think this is a permanent state of affairs for the
Iranian people.

Is it going to succeed?
Inevitably. Tomorrow? I wish it would. Maybe not.
Thought it would. Under the
normal state of affairs, the economic pressure, political pressure on the
Iranian people is so intense one would think this would happen almost
immediately. But there's a lot of
experience in the human condition of being willing and able to accept far more
punishment than you would think possible.
People endure more than you think they could ever endure before they
revolt. Iran is one more test case to
that, as is North Korea, as was Mao's China, as was Stalin, as was Nazi
Germany. There are a lot of cases where
people endure more than you'd ever believe, but in the end it still only leads
to one place. So while delayed, it will
happen.

We all wish that many nations would come forward and take
the lead. They have not. We all have our roles in history. Our European allies may choose other fights
that we don't choose. We can be
supportive from the sides. In this case,
it appears to be something the United States is going to lead, but lead it
well. And those nations who want to
avoid conflict realize, again, there's only two ways out-this road or the
military road. This is the path better
taken.